Re: Built-in binning functions

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Built-in binning functions
Date: 2014-09-07 19:47:53
Message-ID: 540CB669.9040706@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/09/14 21:09, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-09-07 15:05:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the main remaining issue is that we don't have consensus on
>> the function name AFAICT. I'm okay with using width_bucket(), as
>> is done in the latest patch, but there were objections ...
>
> Just reread that part of the thread and personally I disliked all the
> other suggested names more than width_bucket.
>

Same here, that's why I didn't change it.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shigeru HANADA 2014-09-07 23:07:59 Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-09-07 19:31:41 Re: Adding a nullable DOMAIN column w/ CHECK